C 344 




Glass. 



ICi 



Book_iljij44 



I 



SPEECH 



HON. LEWIS C'ASS, OF MICHIGAN, 



IM REPLY TO 



MR. BENTON, OF MISSOURI, 



WITH SOME ADDITIONS. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THURSDAY, APRII> 2, 1846. 



Mr. Ashley said that he was yesterday enti- 
iled to the floor; but had yielded to the Senator 
from Missouri, [Mr. Bextov,] who spoke at such 
length as to preckide him (Mr. A.) from address- 
ing the Senate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Cass] was now in his seat, and as he was on parole, 
it was to be supposed he was desirous of respond- 
ing to the Senator from Missouri. He (Mr. A.) 
therefore very willingly again waived his right, 
and gave way to the Senator from Michigan. 

Mr. CASS then rose and said: 

Mr. President: I am much obliged to my friend 
from Arkansas, [Mr. Ashley,] for his kindness in 
yielding to nie the floor upon this occasion. He is 
right in supposing it is necessary, from the po.sition 
in which the honorable Senator from Missouri, by 
his remarks of yesterday, placed me. Before, how- 
ever, proceeding further, 1 must return my thanks 
to my friend from Indiana, [Mr. Hankegam,] for 
what he said of me, and for me, while I was absent. 
I am still more obliged to him, however, for the sake 
of tlie common object which he and I, and others 
■of us, have in view, than even for my own sake. I 
learn, and I learn it without any surprise, that his 
vindication was masterly and eloquent, I can well 
believe it, sir, from the many proofs, wliich he has 
Siven us during the session of his jiowers of orato- 
ry, and esi)ecially from the positions he has t^ikcn 
; nd supported in the Oregon controversy. 

.VIr. President, I have come here this morning 
to s«=t myself free. Twice in my life 1 have been 
captured by enemies — once fighting against British 
pretensions in war, and again Pghting against Brit- 
ish pretensions in peace. My country redeemed 
mc in the former case — I come to redeem myself in 
the latter. I .say enemies, but I trust the term is 
only metaphorically applicable. There i.s nothing 
in the former relations between the honorable Sen- 
ator tVoni Missouri and myself, nothing in our pre- 
sent jiosition, which should make us enemies. On 
;h<; contrary, a long personal friemJship has exist- 



I ed between us, which I did not suppose was sun- 

i dered. If, however, it is otherwise, I must bear it 
as I may. I have borne greater calamities than 

I even the hostility of the honorable gentleman from 
Missouri. 

I came here, sir, as I said before, to redeem my- 
self; and I mean to do it: to do it by correcting a 
misapprehension, — by speaking the truth. 
'• He is tl\e freeman, wlioiii tliu truth makes free : 

I All ulse are slaves beside." 

I I will not speak in the triumphant tone, which 

pervades the speech of the honorable Senator from 

Missouri. It is not my habit. " Let not him that 

girdeth on his harness, boast himself, as he that 

' putteth it off." Let no man boast till the victory 

; IS won. And especially, let him not boast while 

' his adversary is absenU What the Senator said 

j presents subjects enough for animadversion, but 

the manner in which he said it was still more un- 

' acceptable. I am ignorant of any circumstances, 

' in our relative situations, which could justify it; 

i still, I repeat, that I mean to vindicate myself, and 

I lliat, too, to the entire .satisfaction of every man 

within the sound of niy voice. 

IVIr. Hanveoam. Every iiuparlial man. 
I Mr, CASS. No, Mr. President: I will not ac- 
cept the qualification suggested by my friend from 
I Indiana. If my vindication is not satisfactory to 
I every man, partial or impartial, I will agree to be 
tied to the chariot wheels of the honorable Senator 
from Missouri, and to fight the battles of 49; and 
I hardly know two more severe punisiunents, that 
could be inflicted upon me. 
i The honorable Senator says tliat I came here 
the otlu'T day to make a studied speech on the sub- 
ject of Oregon, I did so, sir; and he overrates his 
own powers, and underrates the mental qualities 
of the members of this body, who comes Iiere to 
give iiis opinions upon a great national subject 
without due preparation. I shall not commit that 
folly; and I have too much reeard for the intelli- 



MAR 2 9 1313 



/sr-^/7/ 






gence ajid experience of the honorable Senator to 
believe that he would. I pi-esume that his thoughts 
are fully prepared upon every grave topic, on which 
he presents his views to this body. But, however 
it may have been before, I have not had much time 
for preparation now, for I was not in my seat yes- 
terday when the honorable Senator made his at- 
tack; and of course I could not know, except from 
rumor, what he said till this morning. 

Now, sir, what is the subject in controversy be 
tween the honorable Senator and myself? He says 
that I am committed, by my own declaration, to go 
for 49, if it is shown that commissioners were ap- 
pointed under the treaty of Utrecht to establish 
that parallel as a boundary. This assertion is the 
whole foundation of his argument, upon which the 
whole superstructure rests. If the one falls, the 
other falls with it. Now, sir, 1 not only never 
said so, but the idea never occurred to me; I never 
thougiit of it. And the honorable gentleman has 
wholly misunderstood me, either through my fault 
or his own. 

He has erected a fortification for me, and battered 
it down with his own cannon. I choose to be shut 
up in my own defensive works only. If these are 
carried by siege or by storm, then I will surrender. 
But let me be my own engineer. 

My position was this, sir. Many of the mem- 
bers upon this floor contend that the parallel of 49° 
is the northern boundary of our claim in Oregon. 
Some directly so; and others, because it was as- 
sumed to be such by our Government in the early 
period of our controversy on this subject with Eng- 
land. To us, therefore, who believe that our claim 
in Oregon goes to 54° 40', it was essential to show 
there was an error on this subject; that the treaty 
of Utrecht never extended to the country west of 
the Rocky Mountains. 

Mr. Greenhow, in his work on Oregon, had ex- 
amined this question, and had endeavored to show 
that no commissioners, under the treaty of Utrecht, 
had ever established any boundary between the 
French and English possessions on this continent. 
So fai- as respects the general proposition, it is a 
mere question of historical authenticity, not having 
the slightest pi-actical bearing upon our title to Ore- 
S;on. "Because, before our title to Oregon could be 
affected, it must be shown, that that line, if estab- 
lished at all , must extend west of the Rocky Moun- 
tains. 

Mr. Greenhow, in his work, enters into the 
question, and I referred to his book as one entitled 
to talent, industry, and caution; and 1 requested 
gentlemen, who had doubts on this subject to tuDi 
to that work, and I thought they would satisfy 
themselves, that no such line had been established. 
I did not vouch for the forts or coiiclusions. I 
never examined the general subject in its extent. 
I stated, however, that the result of his discussion 
upon my mind was, that such a line had not been 
run. I am still under that impression, sir, and 
nothing that was said yesterday has shaken its 
Strength. Still, I do not hold myself at all respon- 
sible for Mr. Greenhow 's accuracy. I should in- 
vestigate the subject with far more care than I have 
done^ if I were to be held responsible for deduc- 
tions resting upon any other man's assertions. 

The Senator from Missouri says he comes here 
not to settle a point, which can at all influence the 



action of this body, or have the slightest effect upor 
the termination of our controversy with England. 
He says he " makes no application of this fact," 
referring to his proof that the parallel of 49 was 
established somewhere by the treaty of Utrecht. 
He says: " I draw no argument from it. I do not 
' apply it to the question of title. I am not argu- 
' ing title, and will not do it; but I am vindicating 
' history, assailed in a vital point by the book 
' which has been quoted and endorsed. I am vin- 
' dicating the intelligence of the American Senate, 
' exposed to contempt in the eyes of Europe, by a 
' supposed ignorance of a treaty which is one of 
' the great political landmarks in Europe and 
•^ America," &c. 

The Senator will pardon me for saying that this 
seems to me very much of a tempest in a teapot. 
What does he profess to vindicate before the Senate 
of the United States ? Not the rights of the coun- 
try, but the alleged truth of an historical fact, mis- 
represented by Mr. Greenhow, and vouched for, as 
the Senator thinks, by me. Now, sir, it seems to 
me, that this solemn trial, before such a court as 
this, is hardly justified by the nature of the accu- 
sation. Here is an historical enor. Be it so. No- 
body contends that it affects our interests or our 
honor in the remotest degree; no more so than the 
parentage of Romulus and Remus. This is not a 
lecture room. AVe are neither professors nor stu- 
dents, assembled here to discuss the truth or false- 
hood of historical statements, which have no rela- 
tion to our duties. And it seems to me, also, that 
Europe will know little, and care less, respecting 
this gTrtre controversy, now sub jiirficfi, before this 
high tribunal. I doubt if its fame reaches there, 
I rather imagine, that, in that quarter of the globe,- 
there are other, if not graver, subjects to engage the 
attention of both Governments and people, than 
historic doubts, involving Mr. Greenhow 's accu" 
racy and my credulity. 

Still, sir, as this question is thus brought before 
us, I shall proceed to give a brief synopsis of it, 
and leave honorable Senators to ji-idge for them- 
selves. The Senator from Missouri has brought 
fonvard three principal facts, to prove that the par-- 
allel of 49 was established by commissioners under 
the treaty of Utrecht. The first is a despatch from 
Mr. Madison to Mr, Monroe; the second, a state-- 
ment submitted by Mr. Monroe to Lord Harrow- 
by; the thiid — I put them together, for the honor- 
able gentleman lias joined them — Postlethwayt's 
Dictionary and D'Anville's maps. 

Before proceeding further, sir, I beg to remark, 
that the honorable Senator, in quite a taunting tone, 
contrasts my investigation of this matter with hi.? 
own. He goes to the fountain-head, the authentic 
documents, and there finds the truth; while I go t» 
the turbid stream, and am thence '^' led astray, "and 
thus have wandered into the enemy's camp, and 
have become a prisoner. And what are those au- 
thentic documents which the honorable Senator has 
sought and found, and pored over with the midnight 
lamp, to educe the truth? Why, Postlethwayt'.s 
Commercial Dictionary, containing a ma)/! This 
is all, literally all ! — a v/ork long suice referred to 
by Mr. Greenhow in his book, and examined by 
hmi. 

Now, sir, the first reflection which strikes a man 
! isthis, that if this line were thus established,- the 



proof of it ini^ht have been got forty years ago 
from the archives of Paris or London. That would 
he positive and undeniable evidence, and all short 
of It is inconclusive, and such as no tribunal of 
justice would receive as final. 

Before any man assumes the existence of such a 
line as a barrier to his country's claims he ought 
to prove it, not by loose deductions from loose his- 
torical notices, but by an authentic copy of the act 
of the commissioners. 

But what says Mr. Madison.' The honorable 
Senator ft-om Missouri says, " the fact of commis- 
saries havi ng^ acted, wa.s assumed for certain." The 
language of Mr. Madison reads for otherwise to 
me. As I !3.ttited the other day, he speaks doubt- 
fully upon the subject; and I repeat the assertion, 
notwithstanding the contrary averment of the Sen- 
ator from Missouri. '^Tlifrc is rcafon to believe," 
said Mr. Madison to Monroe, " that the boundary 
between Louisiana and the British territories north 
of it was actually fixed by commissaries appointed 
under the treaty of Utrecht." 
' He then adds, that he sends a paper, containing 
the authority respecting this alleged decision; but 
he adds cautiously: "But yoxt wHi perceive the nc- 
' cessily of recurring to the proceedings of the commis- 
' saries as the source of authentic information. These ' 
' are not within our reach here, and it must be left 
' to your own researches and judgment to deter- ' 
' mine the proper use to be made of thom." If, 
this is certainty, I should like to know what uncer- | 
tainty is. The honorable Senator regrets, that I | 
had not looked into the original documents, instead ! 
of depending on Greenhow, and thus becoming "his j 
dupe and his victim" — not very courteous words 
these, by-the-by — and that if I had done so, I would { 
not have said that Mr. Monroe had not added any- i 
thing to Mr. Madison's statement, and had left the | 
question as doubtful as he had found it. "In point i 
of fact," says the Senator, "Mr. Monroe added the | 
' particulars, of which Mr. Madison declared his ig- 
' norance — added the l>eginning,thecourses and the 
' ending of the line, and stated the whole with the 
' precision of a man, who had taken his information 
' from the proceedings of the commissioners." 

This is to me a strange view of the matter, sir. 
I cannot find that Mr. Madison refers to any par- 
ticulars. He certainly does not use the woril. It 
is the authenticity of the notice, enclosed by him, 
which he desires Mr. Monroe to ascertain. What 
the particulars were, contained in the notice, we do 
not know, as the paper itself cannot be found. 
That notice, as I shall show, or rather Greenhow 
litis shown, there is every reason to believe, was 
an extract from Douglas's History of America. 

Before I proceed to examine these particulars, I 
may be allowed to remark, that Mr. Madison 
doubted with precisely the same facts, which we 
have before us — the map and book referred to by 
ilie honorable gentleman. And to this day, not 
fine single circumstance has been added, which 
couid remove those doubts. Where, then, that 
illustrious man felt uncertainty, I may be permit- 
ted to feel a greater degree of it, in consequence 
of the direct and cin-umstantial evidence since dis- 
i-over<d, leading to the presumption, that no such 
line was cst;\blished. But I repeat, sir, that in 
this investigation I do not profess to come to any 
absolute conclusion. It is a subject, on which men 



may differ. The result of my examination im- 
presses me with the conviction, that no such line 
was established. Mr. Monroe presented a memoir 
to Lord Harrowby, the Secretary of Slate, and I 
will now quote from the gentleman's speech that 
part of it, upon which he dwells, as showing " the 
' beginning, courses, and end of the line, Ac, with 
' the precision of a man, who had taken his infor- 
' mation from the proceedings of the commissa- 
' ries." I will quote, also, the statement of Doug- 
las, the historian of North America; and no doubt 
can exist on the mind of any man, that Mr. Mon- 
roe resorted to that authority for his statement, 
and not to the original archives: 

" Commissaries were ac- DougIa.« sayp, page 7: "By 
cordingly appointed by each the tre:ity, liowpver, tlio Can- 
Tower, who executed tlie ada, or French line, with tlie 
stipulations of th<; treaty in iludson Day Company of 
e>tal)lishiug the boundaries Great liritain, was ascjrtain- 
proposed liy it." "Theyfi\cd ed from n certain promontory 
tlie northern boundary of ttjion the Jitlantic ocerm in 
Canada and Louisiana by a 5S° 30' of norllt, Ifilitude, Ut 
hue bepinning in Uiu .illaiUic, rtin southivctt to Lake Mis- 
at'acape or promoiitori/in ^S° tiisin ; to be continued still 
Xt'norfi l.ititiule; tticnceswitk- soutAfi-est to ttie 49fA ilcjxee, 
vcstTiirdly to the Luke Mistis- and from tlicnce due trat in- 
sin; thence, furllier southwest, definitely." 
to the latitude ofA^" north from 
the equator, mid along that line 
indefinitely." 

Now, sir. the honorable Senator from Missouri 
says that Mr. Monroe must have ti\ken his infor- 
mation from the proceediiiirs of the commissaries. 
No man can doubt but that Mr. Monroe quoted 
from Douglas's book. The language is so nearly 
identical as to render such a coincidence impossi- 
ble, if it were accidental. 

The sugofestion that Mr. Monroe went to the 
archives to procure the particulars, of which " Mr. 
Madison had declared his ignorance, "butof which 
declaration I cannot find a trace, seems to me very 
extraordinary, when we advert to Mr. Monroe's 
report. The proceedings in such a case as this, es- 
tablishing a boundary between two great nations, 
extendingoverso largea portionof the surface of the 
fflobe, were never recorded in the language of Mr. 
Monroe. Who were the commissioners .' Where 
did they sit.' What was the date of their action ? 
Where was the confirmation of their award by 
their Governments? What, in fact, were the points 
indicated ? " Bcginninsr in the Atlentic, at a cape 
or promontory in 53'^ IW north latitude !" A cape 
or promontory not named, but to be ascertained by 
its latitude ! And if the latitude were not correctly 
stated, what then.' Suppose wliere that parallel 
struck the Atlantic, there was no cape or promon- 
tory ? And would any commissioners assume stich 
an absolute knowledge of the topography of a re- 
mote and barren coast, as to make that fact the 
basis of their whole action ! Valid, if it were so; 
invalid, if it were not. 

But this loose lan£rnage is not confined to the 
place of commencement. After leaving this " cape 
or promontory." this toTa incrgititi, the line is to 
run soultnrestirardly to Lake .Mistissin, an indefinite 
course, as will be seen, and not rendered definite 
by indicating what part of the lake it was. to 
strike . 

No reasonable doubt can exist, but that as Mr. 
Monroe employed the language of Douglas, he 
took tlie statement from that historian. 

Mr. Monroe, however, presented the fact to 



Lord Harrovvby, and it was not contradicted by 
him, so far as we know. 

From this negative circumstance the gentleman 
from Missouri draws the important conclusion, that 
the fact must have been so. I shall not enter into 
this matter, as it is not at all important. 

iVIr. Monroe stated a fact, that had occurred, if 
it occurred at all, a century before. It had in re- 
ality little, if any, bearing upon the subject he was 
urging, winch was the right of the United States 
to " possess the territory lying between the lakes 
and the Mississippi, south of the parallel of the 
49th degree of latitude." 

It was to the treaty of 1783, that he was refer- 
ring, and to Mitchell's map, by which it was form- 
ed. He adverts to the treaty of Utrecht by saying- 
that " by rumiing due west from the northwestern 
point of the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, 
according to the treaty of 1783, it must have been 
intended, according to the lights before them, to 
take the parallel of the 49tli degree of latitude, as 
established under the treaty of Utrecht." 

Now, sir, it might well be that Lord Harrovvby 
never considered it necessary to look into this 
alleged fact, as it had no real bearing on the sub- 
ject, being alluded to merely as giving reasons, 
which may have influenced the commissionei-s in 
fixing the boundaries of 1783. 

Most certainly his silence, under such circum- 
stances, turnishes no solid proof — scarcely, I may 
say, a light presumption — in favor of this parallel 
of 49°. 

The next proof of the establishment of this line 
given by the Senator was Postlethwayt's Commer- 
cial Dictionary, with D'Anville's map. There is 
no quotation from the dictionary, and the matter, 
therefore, rests on the map alone. 

The Senator then pointed out the line established 
under the treaty of Utrecht, and read the account 
of it as given in a note on the ufjper left-hand corner 
of the map. The description was in these words: 
" The line that parts French Canada from British 
' Canada icas settled hij commissaries after the peace of 
' Utrecht, makiiig a course from Davis's Inlet, on the 
' Atlantic sea, doicn to Ike 49//i degree, throvgh the 
' LakeAhitihis, to the .A'orthwest Ocean; therefore Mr. 
' D'Jlnville's dotted line east of James's Bay is false." 
The Senator then states that this map was "made 
by D'Anville, the great French geographer of his 
age, and dedicated to the Duke of Orleans," &c., 
&.C.; and he adds, it is the "authentic French testi- 
mony in favor of the line of Utrecht." 

INow, sir, it is not a little curious, that this map, 
thus authoritatively pronounced to be authentic, is 
upon the very face of it stated to be false in one 
important particular. What, then, becomes of the 
correctness of the assertion of the honorable Sen- 
ator, and of the certainty of this testimony? 

If wrong in one respect, it may be so in others, 
and at any rate our faith in its pretensions i.s en- 
tirely shaken. But I do not understand by whom 
this note was written: evidently not by D'Anville, 
for it impugns his own work. We have not, there- 
fore, D'Anville's authority for this line, as being 
established under the treaty of Utrecht. He marks 
the line upon his map, but whence his authority 
for it is left to conjecture.* 

* Such wrre tlv results suggested to me at tlie moment, 
naturally arising (Vom tilt- circumstances:. TaKing the map 



One other point, sir. The honorable Senator 
states, that in an attempted negotiation with the 
British Government, during Mr. Jefferson's Ad- 
ministration, two articles were proposed — one by 
the American commissioners, and one by the Brit- 
ish — for the establishment of a boundary between 
our country and Canada, from the northwestern 
point of the Lake of the Woods. The articles are 
substantially the same, but with the difference 
which an examination of them will show. 

The American projet Tpro\ided: 

"That a line drawn due north or south (as the case 
' may require) from the northwestern point of the 
' Lake of the Woods, until it shall intersect the 49th 
' parallel of north latitude, and with the said paral- 
' lei shall bethesouthern boundary of his Majesty's 
' territories, and the northern boundary of the said 
' territories of the United States." 

The British projet, after providing for the running 
of aline north or south, as might be, from the north- 
western point of the Lake of the Woods to the 
parallel of 49°, provides that the "said parallel 
' shall be the dividing line between his Majesty's 
' territories and those of the United States to the 
' westward of the said lake, as far as their respect- 
' ive territories extend in that quarter; and that the 
' said line shall to that extent form the southern 
' boundary of his Majesty's said territories, and 
' the northern boundary of the said territories of 
' the United States." 

Each of these projets contains the same proviso, 
" That nothing in the present article shall be con- 
' strued to extend to the northwest coast of Amer- 
' ica, or to the territories belonging to, or claimed 
' by, either party on the continent of America west 
' of the Stony Mountains." 

The Senator exclaimed triumphantly, " Here is 
concurrence in the proceedings of commissaries 
under the treaty of Utrecht." " Here is submis- 
sion to that treaty on tlie part of the British," &c. 

In the first place, sir, allow me to remark that 
this was a mere projet, and that no treaty was made 



to be D'Anville's, as I understood the honorable Senator from 
Missouri to state, I could not comprehend by whom it was 
discredited; its surely the French geogrnphor would not have, 
impugned his own work. From the exiftonce of an ac- 
knowledaeri error, I deduced the conclusion that the niai> 
was not entitled to be con~idered "as the authentic French 
testimony in favor of the treaty of Utrecht." 

What, however, 1 did not understand then, I understand 
now. In conversation with Colonel Benton since, he has 
informed me that this map is not the original work of D'An- 
ville, but an Enghsh edition of it, by Bolton, with altera- 
tions. 

Tills fact, of course, destroys the entire value of tJ«e 
map as autlientic testimony. Bolton, in the above note, 
does not state that the parallel of 49° as a boundary was 
marked upon D'Anville's map. This English edition 
was published in Ijondon in 17,'J2, as i^eatly improved 
hi John Bolton. Mr. Grecnliow, who hxs examined D'Aii 
viile's original wo,k, slates, in an article puhli.^hod in the 
Union, April 3, 1840, that neither the jmrnllel of 49° r„9 a 
ftotM'rfa?-!/ between Canada and the Hudson's Bay territories, 
nor any'otker line passin«,throuzh,t!ie same portion oftiier.on- 
tinent,'is to be found on the real map of D'Anville. 

He states that the French geographer upon his map car- 
ried the boundarj' of the French and Briti.-h possessions to 
the dividing land between the waters of the ocean and those 
of the lakes and of the Mississippi ; giving to France the 
whole country west of the mountains, including that situ- 
at<Ml upon the Alabama and its tril)Ut;iries. He says Bolton 
improved ujion this boundary, by carrying the British line to 
the 49th parallel ; and if so, then what becomes of this " au- 
thontle French testimony, in favor of the line of Utrecht— 
that lini; upon whicli the Senator from Michigan has staked 
Uie reversal of liis Oregon position ?" 



on the subject till eleven years nflerwnrds, in 1818. 
Now, whtit is meant by "concurrence" here? If 
accidental coincidence, the matter is not worthy of 
further inquiry. But if by "concurrence" is meant 
that this hue was actually established by the treaty 
of Utrecht, and thus bniding on the parties, no 
other convention was necessary. Both nations, 
upon this assumption, mistook their own rights 
and their duties. The boundary had been estab- 
lished a century before, and they were carrying on 
a useless and barren negotiation, which was thus 
blindly and unnecessarily ripened into a treaty in 
1718. But, sir, the Senator proceeds to ask what 
Mr. Jefferson did with this p-okt, and adds, tliat he 
rejected it. And why, sir? The letter from Mr. 
^Iadison to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, dated 
July 30, 1807, states: 

" The modification of the fifth article (noted as 
' one which the British commissioners would have 
' agreed to) may be admitted in case that proposed 
' by you to them be not attainable. But it is much 
' to be wished and pressed, though not made an 
' ultimatum, that the proviso to botii should be 
' omitted. This is, in no view whatever, ncccssa- 
' ry , and can have little other effect than as an offen- 
'sive intimation to Spain that our claims extend to 
' the Pacific ocean. However reasonable such 
' claims may be, comiiared with those of others, it 
' is impolitic, especially at the present moment, to 
' strengthen Spanish jealousies of the United States, 
' which it is probably an object with Great Britain 
' to excite by the clause in question." 

Now, sir, Mr. Jefferson's object was not to of- 
fend Spain, and therefore he rejects a proviso, 
which expressly limits our claim to the Rocky 
Mountains, in order not to excite the jealousy of a 
most jealous nation, by even the appearance of in- 
terfering with her rights; and yet the honorable 
Senator supposes that this very treaty, without 
the proviso, was to run to the Pacific, claiming for 
us and England the whole country. And which 
would excite the jealousy of Spain most? To say 
expressly the American Government will make no 
arrangement with that of England for pushing the 
American title west of the Rocky Mountains, or 
to form a treaty actually carrying this claim there 
without regard to Spanish rights? It is obvious 
to me, that Mr. Jefferson did not believe in the 
English title west of the Rocky Mountains as far 
as the Pacific; and, therefore, making a treaty with 
that Power for the establishment of a boundary 
iietween her and the United States would not justly 
give oflencc to Spain, as it would not call in ques- 
tion Spanish rights. 

The honorable gentleman has not said one woid 
of Mr. Jefferson, in which I do not heartily concur. 
An abler or a purer statesman is rarely to be found 
in history. Time, which tries the fiime of all 
men, and reduces tjie fame of most men, is render- 
ing his brighter and brighter; and we have scarcely 
rt name in history — certainly but one — which is 
more revered by the American people, as that of a 
pure patriot and a consummate statesman. The 
honorable Senator will please to recollect, that this 
projcl of Mr. Jefferson, under any circumstances, 
proves nothing, because — 

1. It was never carried into effect ; 

2. It was i)cfore the Florida treaty, by which 
we acquired the Spanish title ; 



3. It was formed under the impression, now 
shown to be an erroneous one, that the parallel of 
49° had been established, under the treaty of 
Utrecht, at) the northern boundary of Louisiana, 
extending to the Rocky Mountains. 

But after all, our rights remain as they were; 
and the opinions of such able and honest men as Mr. 
Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe, what- 
ever those opinions may have been, though entitled 
to very grave consideration, still leave tlie Govern- 
ment perfectly free and unembarrassed by a ptojet 
propo.scd by them, but finally abandoned. Though, 
upon the assumption that the northern boundary 
of Louisiana was fixed by commissaries under 
the parallel of 49°, I cannot understand why the 
parties negotiated at all; and though 1 sec no evi- 
dence, that the line proposed was intended as the 
recognition of an English title west of the Rocky 
Mouiitains, to the exclusion of Spain, but the con- 
trary, yet I have such an abiding confidence in 
each of those statesmen, that I am fully satisfied 
the apparent facts within their reach justified their 
course, whatever that was intended to be. 

But, sir, what are the circumstances wliich ren- 
der doubtful— 1 might say discredit— the establish- 
ment of this parallel of 49° under the treaty of 
Utrecht? I will refer here to a portion of an arti- 
cle pui)lished in the Union, February 24, 1846, 
and written by Mr. Greenhow: 

"On the other hand, Mitchell's large map ot 
' America, published in 1755, under the patronage 
' of the Colonial Department of Great Britain, 
' which was consulted and adopted as authority by 
' the British and American Plenipotentiaries in 
' regulating tlie limits of the United States, in the 
« treaty of 178.3, presents a line drawn along the 
' highlands separating the waters flowing into Ilud- 
' son's Bay from those of the St. Lawrence and 
' the lakes, as the ' boundary of Hudson's Bay by 
' the treaty of Utrecht;' and the same line appears 
' on the map of America, in Smollett's History of 
' En<rland, published in 1760; on that of Bennett, 
' in 1770; on that of Faden in 1777; and on some 
' other maps of that time. 

"In contradiction of all these opinions, no line 
' of separation whatsoever between the Hudson's 
' Bay territories and the French possessions, is to 
' be found on the large and beautiful map of Amer- 
' ica, by Popple, published in 1738, (also under the 
' patronage of the Colonial Department,) and bear- 
' ing the certificate of Dr. Halley to its correctness; 

< no^r on any map in the Atlas of Maxwell and 
' Senex, published in 1721; in Boyer's Political 
' State, 1721; in the History of Hudson's Bay by 

< Dobbs, the Governor of that territory, 1744; in 
' the Histoire de la Nouvellc France, by Charle- 
'voix, 1744; in the System of Geography, by 
' Bowen, 1747; in the American Traveller, 1769; 
' in the American Atlas, by Jeffries, 1778; in the 
' History of the French Dominions in America, by 
« .Tcffrics. 1760; nor in the Map of America, from 
« the materials by Governor Pownal, in 1794; nor 
' is there any allusion to such a line in the w-orks 
' to which these maps are attached, or in any 
' other work or map of reputation published du- 
' ring the last century, save tliose above men- 
' lioncd. 

"None of the works above-mentioned are au- 
' thoriiieson the subject, proceeding, as they all do, 



6 



' XJ^jZXu "f ^^^^'^^^'J ^^'^'? ''^^ transactions of , ' meeting, but also of their separation .vithout ef- 
the Utrecht treaty, and possessing no better means, ' fecting any of the objects proposed, the following 
Zn' '. "''] °^'"<^^'-":^^'^li°" respecting them | ' passage appears in Ihe Histoire de la Nouvelle 

' theL, ndl 'I'Ss', n'^' '",^f '^' °"'^ ''^°^ ^^"' ' ^'•^^"^^' by Charlevoix: ' France took no part in 

' haveZn J.L,I ^"PPf.^^^.^y so^e persons to ' this dispute, (between the British and Indians in 

• written '".^'^"'^'^ ^^ ^^^ ''"'^ '''''^" '^^^ ^^'•e ' Nova Scotia, in 1722,) in order to avoid giving the 
• tnr.i' 1 I.- 1 . ., I slightest pretext for interruptinp- the sfood under- 

' thoHde tb^f n' '"^ ""^^ ^' considered as an- ' standing between the two nationl, whi^h had been 

^thorities, the following, comprising. It is believed, 

' all in which a record or notice of such a transac- 

' tion, if It had taken place, should be found, are 

' entirely silent with regard to any decision or 

' other act of commissaries appointed under the 

' treaty of Utrecht, to settle the line of separation 

'between the Hudson Bay territories and the 

' French possessions, viz: the Collections of Trea- 

'ties by Dumont, Boyer, Martens, Jenkinson, 

' Herstlet, and others; Actes, Memoires, &c., con- 

'cernant la Paix d'Utrecht, 1716, and Actes, Ne- 

'gociations, &c., depuis la Paix d'Utrecht, 1745, 

' two voluminous works, containing, it may be 

• supposed, every public document, and notice of 

' every act connected with the negotiation of the 

' treaty of Utrecht, and the consequent proceedings; 

' Collection des Edits, Ordonnances, &.c., concern- 

' ant le Canada, dnebec, 1803, apparently a com 

« r^^o^o occQ„,Kl„™„ «<'„)1 .1 1 • . ■'. > ,- 



rangais et Anglais, 

• surles Possessions des deux Couronnes en Ame- 
' riqiie, 1754 to 1757, which could not have thus 
' omitted to notice this settlement of boundaries, if 
' it had taken place; the Histoire de la Diploma- 
' tie Francaise, by Flassan, 1811, and the Histoire 
' des Traites de Paix, by Koch and Schoell, 1817. 
' To these authorities may be added, as equally 
' silent on the subject, the Histories of England by 
'Tmdall, Smollett, Belsham, Hughes, "MaTi on, 

• Wade, the Parliamentary History, and the Pic- 
' torial History; the Histories of France, bv Sis- 
' mondi, Anquetil, and Lacretelle; Lord John Rus- 
' sell's Affairs of Europe since the Peace of Utrecht; 
' the Histories of, and Memoirs on, Louisiana, by 
' Dumont, Dupraix, Vergennes, and Marbois: the 
' political works of Swift, Bolingbroke, and Vol- 
' taire; and many other works relating to the his- 
' tory of the period at which this settlement of the 
' northern limit of Louisiana is said to have been 
' made. 

" This is all negative evidence, indeed; but it is 
' the only evidence of which the case admits, and 
' is eciuivalent to a positive contradiction of the 
' supposition that any settlement of boundaries be- 
' tween the Hudson Bay territory and the French 
' possessions was made under the treaty of Utrecht; 
' as such a transaction could not have escaped no- 
' tice in all, or indeed in any, of the works men- 
' tioned in the preceding paragraph, if it had taken 
' place, and especially if it had been so notorious 
' as the knowledge of it by those who asserted it 
' would seem to indicate. It will be said that there 
' must have been some foundation for the assertion ; 
' and possibly such aline may have been proposed, 
' and made the subject of discussion between the 
' two Governments in 1718, as a part of it M'as, a 

• hundred years after, between one of them and the 
' United States. That commissaries were appoint- 
' ed to settle boundaries, under the treaty of Utrecht, 
'is most probable; and, in proof not only of their 



' restored with so much difficulty; even the negoti- 
' ations between the two Courts for the settlement 
' of boundaries ceased, although commissaries had 
' been appointed on both sides, for that object, 
'since 1719.' Anderson, in his History of Com- 
' merce, and Macpherson, in his Annals of Com- 
' merce, both positively deny that any boundaries 
' were settled under the treaty of Utrecht." 

In addition to the facts above stated, I will add 
another short paragraph, which was handed to me 
by my friend [Mr. Hanneoan] since I came here 
to-day. I have not had time to advert to the ori- 
nal, but I presume it is correct. 

" In De Mofras's book, the official exposition by 
' the French Government of the grounds of the 
' English claims to the Oregon territory, and its 
' own former pretensions to that region, it is said, 
' vol. ii. p. 158: 

" ' It was agreed, at the peace of 1713, and bv 
' the treaty of Utrecht, that commissioners should 
' meet to trace with precision, to the north and the 
' west, the limits between the Hudson Bay coun- 
' try and New France, and to the south, the bound- 
' aries between that province and the English pos- 
' sessions. Nevertheless, there does not exist in 
' any written record, nor in any maps or charts, a 
' single document showing that these frontiers ever 
' were definitively established. And, in 1722, all 
' proceedings on this subject had been abandoned, 
' according to Father Charlevoix, that not the least 
' pretext might be given to violate the good under- 
' standing, which it had been found so difficult to 
' establish between the two crowns of France and 
' England. The archives of the office of Foreign 
' Affairs contain no chart or memoir relating to the 
' treaty of Utrecht, regarding these frontiers, nor 
' do those of the Department of Marine; and thus 
' the assertion of Charlevoix is fully sustained.' 

" The reference is to Charlevoix's New France, 
' vol. iv. p. 124, and the top of the page."* 

Now, sir, I shall pursue this investigation no fur- 
ther. I have already observed that, whether this 
line was established or not east of the Rocky 
Mountains, is not of the slightest importance. The 
position that I occupied in my speech, and tliat 1 
occupy now, is ihis: It is contended in the Senate, 
and out of it, that the parallel of 49 is our northern 
boundary in the territory of Oregon, and that it 

* Tho following is the remark of Fattier Charlevoix, re- 
ferred to above : 

" France took no part in this quarrel," fspeakingofsome 
disputes between the Eiifflish and the rniii.ins.) " so as not 
to give the le.iPt pretext to break the L'ood under>taiuling, 
which it had cost so much to establish, betncea the two 
Crowns. The negotiations between the two courts for the 
establishment of boundaries ceased; although commission- 
ers had been appointed on both sides ever since the year 
1719." 

This was written in 1743. The author was the well 
known traveller sent out by the Freiieh Goveriuucnt to ex- 
plore and describe their possessions in North America: a 
task which he executed with equal jmigmeiit and accuracy. 
Great v/cight is due to liis authoritj'. 



was assumed as such by our Government in the 
early part of the controversy, and so maintained 
for some years; and that \vc are, therefore, conclu- 
ded against the assertion of any other boundary. 
Now, sir, my object was to show, that no such line 
was ever established by the treaty of Utrecht in 
the Oreg:on country, and that we were, therefore, 
free to ur£;e our pretensions, without regard to this 
statement, or to tlie acts of our Government, found- 
ed upon an erroneous impression, that the lino of 
49° did extend to the Pacific ocean. This is what 
I undertook to dis])rovc, and nothing but this. 
And I will now ask the honorable Senator from 
Missouri if he believes that the parallel of 49 was 
ever established by commissaries under the treaty 
of Utrecht, as a boundary west of the Rocky 
Mountains? I will wait for the honorable gentle- 
man's reply. 

[Here Mr. Cass paused for a short time; but Mr. 
Bkntok not answering, he continued.] 

Well, the honorable gentleman does not answer 
nie. If he believed the line run there, I am sure 
he would say so; (1:)r, if it did run there, we are for- 
ever foreclosed from any claim under the Louis- 
iana treaty, and the force of the honorable gentle- 
man's attack upon me would be greatly strength- 
ened. As he does not answer, 1 shall take it for 
granted that he believes no such line was ever 
established there. And if the fact is so, my ob- 
ject is answered, and we are relieved from the em- 
barrassments arising out of the repeated assertions 
that the line of 49° is our northern boundary in 
the territory of Oregon. I will now read to the 
honorable Senator what I said the other day on 
this subject, and he will perceive how much he has 
misapprehended me, and that all my allusion to the 
parallel of 49° east of the Rocky Mountains was a 
mere incidental topic, having no bearing upon my 
actual position. What I did say ia this: "The 
' treaty of Utrecht never refers to the parallel of 49°, 
' and the boundaries it proposed to establish were 
' those between the French and Engli.sh colonies, 
' including the Hudson Bay Company in Canada. 
' The charter of the Hudson Bay Company granted 
' to the proprietors all the ' lands, countries, and 
' teritorics, ' upon the waters discharging themselves 
' into Hudson's Bay. 

"At the date of the treaty of Utrecht, which was 
' in 1713, Great Britain cltximed nothing west of 
'those 'lands, countries, and territories,' and of 
' course there was notliing to divide between France 
' and England west of that line. Again, in 1713, 
' the northwestern coast was almost a lei-ra incog- 
' nita, a blank upon the map of the world. Eng- 
' land then neither knew a foot of it, nor claimed a 
' foot of it. By adverting to the letter of Messrs. 
' Gallatin and Rush, communicating an account 
' of their interview with Messrs. Goulburn and 
' Robinson, British commissioners, dated October 
' :20th, 1818, and to the letter of Mr. Pakenham to 
' Mr. Buchanan, dated September 12th, 1844, it 
' will be seen, that the commencement of the Brit- 
' ish claim is effectively limited to the discoveries 
■of Capuiin Cook in 1778. How, then, could a 
• boundary have been established fifty years be- 
' fore, in a region where no Englishman had ever 
' penetrated, and to which England had never as- 
' serted a pretension ? And yet'the assumption that 
' the parallel of 49 degrees was established by the 



' treaty of Utrecht as a line between France and 
' England, in those unknown regions, necessarily 
' involves these hiconsistent conclusions. But be- 
' sides, if England, as a party to the treaty of Utrecht, 
' established this line, runnmg to theWcstcrn ocean, 
'as the northern boundary of Louisiana, what pos- 
* sible claim has she now south of that line ? The 
' very fact of her existing pretensions, however un- 
' founded these may be, shows that she considers 
' herself no party to such a line of division. It 
' shows, in fact, that no line was ruUj for if it had 
' been, the evidence of it would be in the English 
'archives, and, in truth, would be known to the 
' world without contradiction." Thisis what I said; 
and this was followed by the synopsis of my views 
upon the subject, which I read, and which I will 
read again: 

1. It is not shown that any line was established 
on the parallel of 49 to the Pacific ocean. 

2. The country on the northwestern coast was 
then unknown, and I believe unclaimed: or, at any 
rate, no circumstances had arisen to call in question 
any claim to it. 

3. The British negotiators in 1818, and their 
Minister here in 1844, fixed upon the voyage of 
Captain Cook, in 1778, as the conmiencement of 
the British title in what is now called Oregon. 

4. The treaty of Utrecht provides for the estab- 
lishment of a line between the French and British 
colonies, including the Hudson Bay Company. 
The British held nothing west of the company's 
possessions, which, by the charter, included only 
the " land^, countries, and temtones," on the waters 
running into Hudson's Bay. 

5. If England establishad this line to the Pacific 
ocean, she can have no claim south of it; and this 
kind of argument, ad hominem, becomes conclusive. 
And let me add, that I owe this argument to my 
friend from Missouri, [Mr. Atchison,] to whose 
remarks upon Oregon the Senate listened with 
pleasure and with profit some days since. 

6. How coidd France and England claim the coun- 
try to the Pacific, so as to divide it between them 
in 1713, when, as late as 1790, the British Govern- 
ment, by the Nootka convention, expressly recog- 
nised the Spanish title to that country, and claimed 
oidy the use of it for its own subjects, in common 
with those of Spain. 

I am now, sir, brought to the annunciation, v.'hich 
I made, and which the honorable Senator has so 
strangely misunderstood. What I said was this — 
I will repeat it in the very words I used upon the 
former occasion: " I now ask, sir, what nght has 
' any American statesman, or what right has any 
' British statesman, to contend that ourclaim, what- 
' ever it may be, is not just as good north of this 
' line as it is south of it.' When this question is 
' answered to my satisfaction, I, forone, will consent 
' to stop there. But until then, I am among those 
' who mean to march, if we can, to the Russian 
' boundary." 

This, sir, is my position. How different it is 
from the position assigned to me by the honorable 
Senator, I need not say. I trust I have redeemed 
myself, and that I can again enter into the contest, 
a free man, battling for the full rights of his coun • 
try even to 54° 40'. 

There is one point to which I beg leave to ad- 
vert. The honorable Senator has given me a fair 



8 



hit, and I award him the credit due to it. In my 
remarks the other day, alluding to the effect that 
improper persons, " minions, and favorites, and 
mistresses," liad produced upon the destinies of 
nations by the exercise of an injurious influence, I 
adverted to the fact of the ofience taken l)y Mrs. 
Masham at having a ciij) of tea spih upon her silk 
gown. The incident I reniemi)ered, and its influ- 
ence I remembered, but I thought it had been ex- 
erted to produce a war, whereas the honorable Sen- 
ator has corrected me, and has shown that it was 
exerted to produce peace. It is a long time since 
1 have looked into the English history. I presume 
the honorable gentleman from Missouri refreshed 
bis recollection last evening. 



Mr. BENTON . I have not looked at it for forty 
years. 

Mr. CASS. The honorable gentleman's mem- 
ory is tlien better than mine. I will remark, how- 
ever, that the incident, even as it happened, is il- 
lustrative of the general position I assumed, be- 
cause the favorite of dueen Anne would as soon 
have brought about a war as a peace, had the 
former, instead of the latter, been necessary to en- 
able her to vent her spleen upon the Duchess of 
Marlborough. I repeat, the correction was a fair 
hit, and the manner entirely unobjectionable. I 
shall testify my acknowledgment by putting the 
fact right in my printed speech. 



